Will a New Arms Trade Treaty be Approved?

Diplomats of the member states of the United Nations have gathered in New York at the organization’s headquarters tasked to hash out an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The potential ATT would set standards for the global conventional arms trade, a $70 billion industry. It recognizes that arms trade is a lawful business with friendly partners, but proper global standards are necessary to prevent weapons from getting into the wrong hands. Questioning the lack of an ATT, which could prevent the perpetrating of heinous crimes, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has stated, “There are common standards for global trade in arm chairs but not the global trade in arms.”

The current diplomatic conference to formulate an ATT, scheduled to continue till March 28, has resumed negotiations from the first such meeting in July 2012. After weeks of negotiating in July, the United States, the largest global arms trader controlling a plurality of the market, as well as other major arm traders Russia and China, stated more time was needed to come to consensus on the draft text. British Foreign Secretary William Hague summed up the efforts by saying, “We have made huge progress. But to be fully effective…more time is needed to reach the widest possible agreement.”

Different sources believe the United States’ decisions was the result of President Obama campaigning for re-election and he did not want to risk losing votes – gun rights advocate groups, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), oppose the ATT, stating it would lead to the path of infringing on citizens “right to bear arms” that is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. However, arms control advocates state international treaties are designed not to usurp domestic law, and there is specific language in the proposed ATT text reaffirming the sovereign right for states to domestically regulate arms within its territory. Moreover, The American Bar Association (ABA) released a white paper that discussed the proposed treaty and the Second Amendment that concluded, “U.S. ratification of the treaty would not infringe upon rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

In December of 2012 (after the U.S. elections), the U.N. General Assembly voted to restart negotiations for this week. Due to the complexities of the text, the divergent opinions of member states, and the need to comb over the minute legalese of every word, clause, and correct placement of punctuation – one example is the U.S. stating the term “overriding risk” must be kept countering other countries that instead want the treaty to say “substantial risk” or the U.S. will not be party of the treaty – many believe the scheduled end of the conference will be extended.

Pushing along the process, numerous civil society organizations (CSOs) have been leading efforts for years to end the illegal trade in arms, and this conference is no different. Control Arms, which is a coalition of 102 civil society organizations, is advocating for a strong ATT that is free of loopholes. The organization believes that a treaty with loopholes could provide grounds for an even grimmer situation than the status quo by providing conduits to states to opt out of certain obligations. Control Arms also voices the need for the inclusion of ammunition and components in the ATT, but those aspects have been lobbied against by various nations.

Humanitarian Campaigner from Control Arms Lorey Campese holds the view that “it is necessary for an Arms Trade Treaty to also include regulation of munitions and all arms components.” Mr. Campese continued, “human rights must also be a central focus to protect lives of those at risk.” Overall, CSOs consider a successful ATT will provide the ability to stem the flow of weapons and accompanying supplies that could be deployed in violent intractable conflicts that kill and maim thousands of innocent people, including women and children.

However, after the president’s (of the conference, Ambassador Peter Woolcott [pictured above] of Australia) Non-Paper was released March 22 (Second Draft ATT), it has left CSOs and other parties disheartened with the content. It is the view that much of the text has been constructed to favor powerful countries, mostly weapon exporters, instead of representing the opinions voiced by the vast majority of member states. In fact, a joint statement was issued by 118 U.N. member states expressing their support for stronger provisions on issues of controlling ammunition, the prevention of diversion, and clear language around the application of comprehensive criteria for assessing whether to authorize an arms transfer.

As currently constituted, the ATT would regulate the international trade of battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arcs and light weapons. It includes the export, import, transit, trans-shipment and brokering of these weapons. Ammunition and parts/components are not adequately covered, though. And the loopholes identified over the first week of discussions and negotiations remain in the new text largely unchanged.

Other countries, such as India which is a major arms importer, are committed to coming together on an ATT with balanced obligations for importers and exporters. Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament Sujata Mehta believes a treaty needs specific wording to prevent, combat, and stop illicit trafficking in conventional arms and their illicit use especially by terrorists and other unauthorized and unlawful non-State actors. It must conform to meet continuity with other U.N. Security Council resolutions and anti-terrorism conventions.

CSOs are redoubling their efforts in the last few days to try to influence changes for the third and final draft to achieve a thorough and balanced ATT that will provide a means to save lives and livelihoods.

Work is tumultuous when the largest arms dealer will not commit to full support. The U.S. can only be party to international treaties if two-thirds of senators concur. However, just this past Saturday the Senate passed an amendment 53-46 to a budget bill that prevents the U.S. from joining an ATT citing infringement on the Second Amendment. Also, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry voiced tepid support saying, “The U.S. is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability.” Secretary Kerry couched the comments in regards to the Second Amendment issue as well.

Actors from many levels are calling on President Obama to lead on this issue and to nudge other nations to formulate needed language and demands in the text, but thus far the president’s voice has been conspicuously absent from the proceedings.